James Solomon purchased a gut renovated home for 783k in 2015. The taxes are approximetly $44000. The property was not reassessed after the renovation. James Solomon greatly benefitted from the cities policy.

James Solomon is cheating JC out of taxes. Perhaps his parents can make up the difference?

"Late last year, multiple city employees told The Jersey Journal, FBI agents interviewed city employees, asking questions about the city's real-estate development practices. The employees, who asked not to be identified discussing the matter, said one of the topics discussed during the interviews was whether a Fulop political operative had undue influence over administration matters.

The FBI declined to comment, citing its policy neither to confirm nor deny the existence of investigations."

"Mayor Steve Fulop wasn't the only Jersey City politician Gov. Chris Christie's team courted for a possible endorsement.

Matt Mowers, a former aide to the Republican governor, testified on Friday in the ongoing federal trial related to the George Washington Bridge lane closures that he met with Ward E Councilwoman Candice Osborne at a Jersey City cafe three years ago to discuss whether she would back Christie's re-election bid.

Mowers said he and Christie campaign staffer Pete Sheridan sat down with the Downtown councilwoman in August 2013 on the recommendation of Fulop and the mayor's political advisers.

"They believed she was going to endorse Gov. Christie's re-election campaign," Mowers testified. "And they thought Mayor Fulop wanted to be helpful towards the governor's campaign, or seem helpful while also not endorsing himself."

Mowers said Tom Bertoli, a Fulop political operative, met with Christie re-election campaign manager Bill Stepien and "had been recommending people we would work with within Jersey City.""

"...the move may have torn apart his own staff, some of whom because the subject of speculation and rumor, especially Bertoli -- who was named in one publication as the possible reason for Fulop’s withdrawal.

“I’m just a small fish in the state,” Bertoli said last week. “This had nothing to do with me. I didn’t even know about it. But I will be thinking hard about the future.”

Bertoli like others said he felt betrayed by the lack of confidence Fulop’s sudden decision showed.

“He’s like a scared kid,” Bertoli said, debating on whether or not he will lend his support to State Senate President Stephen Sweeney as one of the other prominent candidates running against Murphy in the Democratic Primary next June.

“I’m not losing any sleep over this,” Bertoli said. “This has nothing to do with me. Whatever made Steve change his mind, he did on this own without consulting anyone.”"

"Of the potential witnesses in the Wrieden case, Madden had the most to say about Bertoli, who was once Fulop’s chief political operative (the two had a falling out last year about the time Fulop said he wouldn’t run for governor). Bertoli works as a permit expeditor. Fulop’s critics say Bertoli wielded outsized influence on planning matters after Fulop’s election, which Fulop has denied.Among Madden's claims: that Bertoli appeared to have access to a secure parking garage at 30 Montgomery St., where the city's planning offices are; that he believes Cruz told a developer seeking properties in Journal Square that he would "put him in touch" with Bertoli; and that Cruz told him Bertoli signed off on Madden's transfer to the HEDC. "You should thank Tommy for your — for this title" Madden said Cruz told him.Wenger, asked about Bertoli in his deposition, said "Bertoli's presence increased after Cruz took office.” He referenced a meeting about proposed changes to a redevelopment plan attended by Wenger, Bertoli and Cotter's immediate replacement, Maryann Bucci-Carter."Why was Bertoli there?" Noble asked."Good question," Wenger said.Wenger has been spotted in recent days campaigning for Matsikoudis.In his deposition, Cruz did not deny knowing Bertoli but characterized their relationship as "cordial" and casual."Outside the building, 'Hey, how you doing? How are you, kid?' That kind of stuff he says to me," Cruz said. "And I say, 'Oh, everything's good,' you know, and we walk away. But we don't hang out."A request for comment from Bertoli was not returned.The depositions aren’t all bad news for Cruz. Cotter, questioned by the city's attorney, said Cruz never did anything illegal, improper or immoral. Madden said he's not aware of any projects where Agarwal was given special treatment.Fulop’s name comes up only occasionally. Wrieden, in his deposition, recounted a conversation he had on July 24, 2013, less than a month after Fulop assumed office. Wreiden said Bertoli confronted him on Grove Street that evening about an Erie Street project that needed planning approval."Just approve it. You don't want the mayor to find out about this or there'll be trouble," Wrieden said Bertoli told him."

Bertoli is also the "Tommy" referred to in the recently surfaced Fulop corruption tape and, as I have noted elsewhere is assisting Symes not least through a sweetheart rent deal with developer Peter Mocco.

"A column or two ago I mentioned that Symes sees Solomon as a threat and may target him. Yet from what I've seen Hudnut also accuses her of having close ties to developers. She has hired Vision Media, the tough, Hudson County Democratic Party traditional political PR firm. She also seems to have Bertoli on her side. It appears Bertoli moved from assisting Grillo.

Guess who always had Bertoli on her side. Yup, outgoing Councilwoman Osborne. Can you connect the dots?"

I appreciate your words DanL. For background: I do know the candidate in question reasonably well. I have been asked to help in various ways, but chose to decline for all the good reasons. She is capable and talented. But, she reeks of real estate money and her support is very deep in the large developer community. Her campaign is very well run and her social media coverage is very strong. Her funding and financial backing is probably the best in the campaign.

Her campaign is probably the most professional for all the Ward E candidates. The level of detail and thoroughness suggests support for a run beyond city council.

Many of her supporters are drawn by her message, but they do not understand that as a council person, she can do very little to bring her agenda to fruition.

The reason she is so well funded is because ultimately Rebecca is not running for city council, she is running for Mayor. It is Chinatown all over again.

P.S. I may respond to the election troll(s) in a few days.

Quote:

DanL wrote:This poster is not an election troll, and I agree with him. This is my concern. She came to Jersey City to take on this role first, then she does what other real estate and developer professionals have done before her, many of whom have been nice neighbors, and get involved, fund and support things on behalf of their employers. But the real estate and development business already has an out sized influence on Jersey City government.

I do not believe that someone at her level, general counsel can just turn a switch and is no longer involved. She still resides in her employers property.

She is clearly a professional and capable person. I would welcome her to get involved in the non-profits that I have worked on over the years.

Quote:

o73o2 wrote:Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

o73o2 wrote:Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

This poster is not an election troll, and I agree with him. This is my concern. She came to Jersey City to take on this role first, then she does what other real estate and developer professionals have done before her, many of whom have been nice neighbors, and get involved, fund and support things on behalf of their employers. But the real estate and development business already has an out sized influence on Jersey City government.

I do not believe that someone at her level, general counsel can just turn a switch and is no longer involved. She still resides in her employers property.

She is clearly a professional and capable person. I would welcome her to get involved in the non-profits that I have worked on over the years.

Quote:

o73o2 wrote:Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

rcjcinsider wrote:It's sad that some people don't see anything WRONG with an in HOUSE attorney for a DEVELOPER run for City Council and of course Mayor NEXT. Rebecca as her ROLE as In house Council for dixon (which I GET WAS her JOB) orchestrated the PAC Money, orchestrated the Tax Cheat, and put her weight behind it. Unless somehow people think a bunch of frat boys from Australia know the inner dealings JC City politics.

It's cool to do that. Dixon is certainly not alone. But don't give us a SOB story about how you fought for the little guy when you run for City Council. It's the same as if Tommy Bertolli were to claim he represents the little home owners of JC and is against developers. Is anybody fucking home?

Well it might be that there is nothing wrong with it. It's a democracy, so if she wants to run, she can. We, as voters, get to decide if we're ok with it or not, through our votes.

Everyone has different opinions and values when it comes to these things. Yours are yours, and everyone else's is his or hers. The outcome will indicate where people fall.

Personally, I can't stand that at election time, we suddenly get bombarded with a bunch of negative posts from people who obviously just signed up for this site. There's nothing wrong with that either. It's just I find it suspect, and annoying.

It's sad that some people don't see anything WRONG with an in HOUSE attorney for a DEVELOPER run for City Council and of course Mayor NEXT. Rebecca as her ROLE as In house Council for dixon (which I GET WAS her JOB) orchestrated the PAC Money, orchestrated the Tax Cheat, and put her weight behind it. Unless somehow people think a bunch of frat boys from Australia know the inner dealings JC City politics.

It's cool to do that. Dixon is certainly not alone. But don't give us a SOB story about how you fought for the little guy when you run for City Council. It's the same as if Tommy Bertolli were to claim he represents the little home owners of JC and is against developers. Is anybody fucking home?

That's why it feels like it will be Grillo 40%; Symes, Hunut, Solomon 20% each. It is no surprise that the Fulop signs are now accompanied with Grillo's quite often. As an independent who will vote for Fulop (the balance vs Healy is positive) but who want to get him in check, not reelect the corrupted old guard, not elect a developer's hand and still want to vote for a person who will represent us all and pursue balanced growth opportunities what are my choices really? Solomon seems the most independent and listening (btw for a "rich" guy he could get new shirts) but could be too progressive on my taxes, Hunut seems a little young. I am edging Solomon but what if I am wrong?

Developers have tried to exert direct political influence on the city for a very long time. That Symes is running for council moves the dial into a completely different direction. She is a skilled real estate lawyer, she has been Dixon's in-house counsel for at least 5 years, and she has been very effective in channeling financial support from Dixon to many politically connected groups and associations in JC. She is not running for the greater common good: she is running for what is best for her and the developers.

That she has left Dixon is known. Few believe that the umbilical cords have been cut completely between Symes and Dixon. Many are aware that she continues to reside in a property that is owned by Dixon.

While working for Symes and in her capacity as their community contact, she has channelled funds from Dixon to different civic groups mainly in the downtown area (Ward E). Whether this has been by design or accident, others should opine on. Whether there were strings attached with the funding- and what types of strings - perhaps are not important, but it is difficult to imagine that a developer would give money away for the benefit of the greater common good. It is more than likely that there has been a covert quid pro quo for the longer term benefit of both Symes and Dixon.

[In the case of Dixon, we should not forget that it is not a U.S. owned entity; it is Australian, hence Dixon would have to comply not only with U.S. but also with Aussie rules when it comes to providing funding to civic groups.]

Symes with her liberal urban upper-middle class agenda is appealing to the average Ward E voter: well-educated, relatively affluent, and socially liberal. She is promising a sanitized version of social justice that appeals to the average voter in the downtown: a more enjoyable city to live in. Consequently, many will vote for her.

It is a huge mistake.

It is difficult to imagine that someone who has moved to Jersey City to work for the most aggressive developer in the city will suddenly embrace an agenda that is not benefitting developers. It borders the unimaginable that her political priorities will move away from supporting development. Her strong pro-developer dependence and connections will counter any of the liberal political promises that she is making during the campaign.

Supporting Symes is an excusable mistake. And, voting for Symes is pure and simple stupidity.

JCvoter wrote:I do not think Grillo is Fulop's pick, I think it's just who he has somehow ended up with and if he got to choose it would be Symes.

To be clear, not making a choice IS a choice... He could have chosen Symes.

He didn't choose to not choose either, he was hedging his bets between the 3 candidates that he knows he can rely on to further his agenda. One "dropped" out so he is left with Symes and Grillo, it looks like Grillo is outperforming Symes but Fulop still needs to keep her in the race because A. she's so close to the money and B. she'll bleed votes from Hudnut and Solomon.

As for Hudnut switching sides, very likely you know more than I do and I'm happy to hear what you have to say but I assumed this was part of the larger Exodus from the Fulop camp - if anyone switched it was Fulop and many people Downtown chose their principles over a person.

One more word on Rebecca Symes, as campaign manager she was the architect of the John Reichart fiasco. Reichart, a Silverman employee, was elected to the Board of Ed, where he did important work such as requesting permission to bring a gun onto school property and posting racist memes on facebook.Reichart resigned after little more than a year.

JCvoter wrote:I do not think Grillo is Fulop's pick, I think it's just who he has somehow ended up with and if he got to choose it would be Symes.

To be clear, not making a choice IS a choice... He could have chosen Symes.

Quote:

I like Hudnut, switching sides is not a problem for me.

The ward leader/switching sides narrative is overplayed. Jacob was never really influential within the Fulop camp; he wanted more power but didn't really do anything to warrant it. He left in a huff when things weren't handed to him.

HarperL504 wrote: Can we stop pretending that Dixon is the only RE company that’s contributing to the unaffordability of Jersey City?

That was a bizarre assertion by Beachguy. I don't think anyone actually believes they are solely responsible for the DTJC gentrification or run-up in RE valuations. And, if someone believes that, well... they just don't know what they are talking about.

I do not think Grillo is Fulop's pick, I think it's just who he has somehow ended up with and if he got to choose it would be Symes.Grillo very much represents pre-Fulop JC and it would have been unimaginable had Fulop run with a Grillo-type. Symes is much more what you'd expect from Fulop and he has bent over backwards to lay the ground for her.Fulop is shitting his pants at the thought of losing ward E and needs a rubber stamp to replace Candice. He has to support the candidate who has the best chance of winning.

Post-election Fulop alienated a lot of the grassroots supporters he had downtown, burning a lot of goodwill in his quest for the governorship. As you point out yourself, his former Ward leader switched sides. No genuine progressive will now touch Fulop with a ten foot pole so he is stuck with an old Healy archetype and Dem Machine/Real Estate drone Symes.

I like Hudnut, switching sides is not a problem for me.Solomon seemed earnest enough when I met him but I find it odd you call him an entitled rich kid given the patronage Symes receives or the fact that she paid mommy blogger Chickpea to endorse her.

Ultimately I don't think Fulop has the slightest chance of losing. The best anyone who opposes him can hope for is a majority independent council to keep him in check while he runs for higher office.

Can we stop pretending that Dixon is the only RE company that’s contributing to the unaffordability of Jersey City? I get it, some of you aren’t fans of Rebecca, but don’t pretend her former employer is the real reason you don’t like her...What about any number of actual DEVELOPERS that are building hundreds of LUXURY apartments and getting taxpayer relief to do it?

Steven Fulop’s pick in this election is really Grillo, who wants to pretend he’s anti development just to get elected. Or What about Steven Fulop’s former ward leader turning sides? Or does Ward E really want some over-entitled rich kid who has his family bankrolling his campaign (Solomon)?

This is patently false. They jumped into an already hot market because they recognized all the signs were there for continued appreciation/gains. They have only been a player in JC for the past five years. If you think the JC market has only been moving up for the past five years, you are way off.

Dixon drove the market up, for sure downtown. But they're going to suffocate under the weight of their overhead and the number of their investors. They're taking 2 or 3 years to renovate their properties that sit vacant until they can get to them. They don't even buy downtown anymore and are scratching for distressed JSQ properties. Just saying.

JPhurst wrote:If you consider working with the mayor to be either an asset or a disqualifier, then the two can be distinguished on that fact alone.

If all things are equal, I would vote for the independent rather than Mayor's slate. Fulop needs to be challenged rather than rubber stamped when he wants to follow his worst impulses. That's what a city council is supposed to do, and far too often ours does not.

I fear the syncing of ALL the council elections with the mayoral election does not serve us well. Hoboken, having offset elections, for better and worse ends up with a far less compliant council.